Krugman and the Arizona Shooting

What is it about small, constitutionally limited government which terrifies so many people? What is it that scares them so much that they equate the love of individual freedom with tyranny, oppression and collectivist evils of all sorts (racism, fascism)?

When Major Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood commentators said not to rush to judgement. Even after it became clear that he had communication with "radicalized" imans the media still refused to make a connection between the shooting and islamo-fascists.

Now a deranged man whose belief systems have nothing in common with the Tea Party becomes a poster boy representating those who are in favor of limited government. What happened to not rushing to judgment? Read Krugman's blog post. The connections Krugman draws are not based in reality. It is one big smear. He writes: "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was." Sure, as was the Time Square bombing attempt and the lunatic who flew his plane into that building in Austin earlier last year. In both those earlier incidents blame the Tea Party accusations were building up until it became clear that no possible connection could be made.

There is no connection this time either. What this is, what Krugman and others are doing, is stiffling debate. After all, they are insinuating that only kooks could possibly want a backwards, anti-progressive agenda such as a constitutionally limited government. By portraying the Tea Party in such a way they are saying to people: "You aren't a kook are you? Therefore you can't be for these wacko Tea Party types." This method, I hate to say it, works. I held off from tying myself to the Tea Party for months as I wasn't sure who, or what they were. Maybe they were the small-town, 3-tooth, inbred, brain-dead, racist fools that the media made them out to be.

The racist meme was tried and that didn't work for long. Now we have the climate-of-hate meme coming from people wearing Che t-shirts. Oh, the irony of it all. But now we see how scared and insignificant Krugman and his cronies are. Look at this update by Krugman:

Update: I see that Sarah Palin has called the shooting “tragic”. OK, a bit of history: right-wingers went wild over anyone who called 9/11 a tragedy, insisting that it wasn’t a tragedy, it was an atrocity.

9/11 was not a tragedy. It was a calculated act of war executed by 19 individuals who had material, financial, technological, and logistical help from dozens if not hundreds more. A tragedy is an act of nature or the random act of a madman. The shooting of John Lennon was a tragedy. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was not. The assassination of William McKinley was a tragedy. The firing of Washington by the British in 1814 was not.

Krugman and other small-minded people are going to call Palin a hypocrite for describing the shooting as "tragic." What's tragic is the left's refusal to consider any dissent from the party line. I'm pro-choice and respect the pro-life position. But to many on the left one cannot be pro-life and be rational at the same time. I'm pro gay-marriage and yet too many on the left cannot realize that WE (the pro-gay rights crowd) are attempting to change centuries of tradition in less than a life time. The animosity coming from the "multi-cultural" left to those with a different belief system, to those from another culture, is nothing short of, dare-I-say-it: reactionary.